Re: In Search of Genuine DigiCash
At 10:08 PM 8/23/94 -0400, Jason W Solinsky wrote:
Well we agree that the selling point is economic efficiency. But "anonymity reduces overhead" ?
I keep getting tangled up in that. I'll try again. Anonymity is not the issue. Strong Cryptography is the issue. Anonymity comes from strong crypto. Like I said before, anonymity is the byproduct of using strong crypto to build a digital cash system. It's like what I said about flight in this same thread. It turns out the best way to go really fast is to fly (at least until someone builds an evacuated tunnel with a magnetic levitation train in it, anyway). In inventing aviation, we discovered how to go really fast. It turns out that going really fast is a cheaper way to do things if time is valuable. Being able to fly, while an end in itself, is also a byproduct of wanting to get somewhere fast, at least in economic terms. It turns out that in creating an anonymous digital cash system, you can do very cheap, irrefutable transactions offline in an internetworked environment. That's cheaper for a whole lot of reasons, a relatively minor one being the ability to pool the cash without a lot of transaction recordkeeping. You don't have to know who gave you each piece of money in order to find who stiffed you, if it happens. The reduced overhead increases economic efficiency. There are other reasons for not doing on-line transactions. Including credit checks, interest calculations on outstanding balances, vendor reserve requirements, transaction threading, on-line wait states and bandwidth, etc. It's considerable. In addition, I'll forward to you off-line the Eric Hughes postings that got me started on this. They were put here on 8/19 at 12:20, 1:02, and 4:24 and 4:43. Cheez, looks like I'm citing scripture here. I feel like one of those fundamnmentalists you see in football endzones on TV. You know, the guys with the sign that says "John 6:66". ;-).
There are alot of reasons why I think anonymity is important, but I fail to see any significant economic advantage that anonymity confers to a person who otherwise couldn't care less about it.
I think like stellar formation, evolution and economic progress, the privacy of digital cash may be a happy accident resulting from the activities of a random process (internet commerce) looking for a way to make itself more efficient. It happens. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923
At 10:08 PM 8/23/94 -0400, Jason W Solinsky wrote:
Well we agree that the selling point is economic efficiency. But "anonymity reduces overhead" ?
I keep getting tangled up in that. I'll try again. Anonymity is not the issue. Strong Cryptography is the issue. Anonymity comes from strong crypto. Like I said before, anonymity is the byproduct of using strong crypto to build a digital cash system.
No it isn't. Making a digital cash system secure, scalable and distributed is a non-trivial task, making it anonymous is still more difficult. Guaranteeing anonymity creates alot of problems as was brought out in a previous discussion on license based cash in which it was pointed out that by colluding with consumers a bank can still "mark" bills.
It turns out that in creating an anonymous digital cash system, you can do very cheap, irrefutable transactions offline in an internetworked environment. That's cheaper for a whole lot of reasons, a relatively minor one being the ability to pool the cash without a lot of transaction recordkeeping. You don't have to know who gave you each piece of money in order to find who stiffed you, if it happens.
I am yet to see a single anonymous digital cash system which could not be implemented more simply if the requirement on anonymity were not made. I would be pleased to be proven wrong.
The reduced overhead increases economic efficiency.
What I'm really asking is for an example of this overhead that is being reduced.
There are other reasons for not doing on-line transactions. Including credit checks, interest calculations on outstanding balances, vendor reserve requirements, transaction threading, on-line wait states and bandwidth, etc. It's considerable.
And its going to get more considerable when we have communities of agents arguing with each other. I think we want to solve the problems created by these requirements, not shy away from them. JWS
The reduced overhead increases economic efficiency. There are other reasons for not doing on-line transactions. Including credit checks, interest calculations on outstanding balances, vendor reserve requirements, transaction threading, on-line wait states and bandwidth, etc. Whatever are you talking about? Credit checks for an online system? If anything, credit status for offline systems would be the salient issue. Interest calculations, if that's the product model, are consistent with both online and offline systems. Ditto for reserve requirements. Transaction serialization (threading) will be required for both systems and look to be more complicated for offline systems than for online. There are some additional costs with implementing the high-uptime systems required for online systems. On the other hand, with the right product structure, there's no need for identity at all in an online system as there is in offline systems with the ability to identify multiple spenders. Eric
participants (3)
-
hughes@ah.com -
Jason W Solinsky -
rah@shipwright.com